Traynor comments on Green & the SFA

[Frankie 8,186]

Well worth the read.

 

 

ALREADY we know Charles Green breathes through his ears. He could talk the hind legs off a donkey. Or a club off an administrator.

 

In fact, he's done exactly that.

 

Yesterday, when the most hated chief executive of Sheffield United - his words, not mine - finally broke cover he spoke all right. Then he spoke some more. And more. And more.

 

Words didn't just trip from his lips. They teemed out. It was torrential and just how someone who had so much to say for himself managed to glide into Ibrox under the radar must remain one of this sorry saga's mysteries.

 

But he did it and although it was about 40 minutes before he stopped for oxygen what exactly had he said that should have Rangers' fans heralding a saviour at last?

 

Not very much at all. Green didn't talk about a budget that would be made available to ensure Rangers would be competitive and he couldn't reveal the identities of his large backing group drawn from the UK, Middle East, Far East and Asia.

 

He was quick to point out that "we are not dealing with people of disrepute" but prefers to get the CVA agreed before uncovering the names of the others.

 

Fine but Rangers fans would prefer to know now, not that they could do much about it if they didn't fancy any of the backers.

 

It's already too late to stop the process. As we heard yesterday there is no reverse gear and Rangers are being passed into new hands. Perhaps a dozen pairs of them.

 

The aim is to get Rangers up and running again as quickly as possible and if the CVA route is blocked by HMRC a newco will be formed, although some of the investors would pull out if the second option has to be brought into play.

 

Okay, again fine, but a little more information yesterday would have helped ease the minds of an army of fans who have been left drained by the events of the past 12 months.

 

They deserved that at least rather than a "thank you for your support and understanding" message from the administrators, although Green did say one thing that should have pleased the fans.

 

He believes no one person should own a football club and made it clear no Rangers investor will own more than 15 per cent of the business, something which should be of great comfort to the supporters after the chaos and humiliation caused by Craig Whyte.

 

His short but disgraceful reign dragged Rangers to the brink and forced the game's governing bodies to sit in judgment. The SPL imposed a 10-point deduction but could yet hand down further punishment while the SFA asked a judicial panel to rule after interviewing former directors.

 

Whyte was fined £200,000 and given a life ban from the game and the club were hit with a £160,000 fine and told they can't deal in the transfer market for a year.

 

Rangers' appeal will be heard on Wednesday but at the end of last week the judicial inquiry's report was made public.

 

And it was damning, not of the owner because he's impervious to criticism but of former directors, even though it is difficult to see what more they could have done to prevent Whyte from getting his hands on the club.

 

Even after the takeover they did their best to raise awareness of Whyte's mismanagement but neither the SFA nor the SPL moved a muscle to help.

 

They didn't even attempt to ask a single question of Whyte, which was strange considering a former director actually approached an extremely high-ranking official in one of the two governing bodies and made his fears about what was happening at his club known.

 

Wonder why that wasn't in the report or why there was no mention of police having been informed last summer of suspicions held by former directors. And why was no attempt made to speak with the man who sold the club, David Murray?

 

It is suggested there are inaccuracies in the report and at least two of the former directors insist they've been misrepresented in it.

 

One is also enraged because he claims he was led to believe whatever he said would remain within the confines of the interview room and that there would be no electronic recordings.

 

So much for the SFA's slick, new and transparent system of justice. But it seems to me this report, which, when you cut through the pompous legalese actually says little that wasn't already known if you'd been reading the papers, leaves the SFA in a tricky position.

 

The panel was independent the SFA will insist but nonetheless it is part of their system and the findings make it clear the governing body believe those former directors should have done more to expose Whyte's regime. Apparently they should have asked more questions of him and then reported to the authorities.

 

So who will ask the questions of Green and his posse?

 

There is no chairman or chief executive to grill Green. And there are no directors who can force him into a chair and then shine a bright lamp in his face.

 

So whose responsibility is it this time?

 

Duff and Phelps are in control but the administrators can probably empathise with Lloyds Bank as they dive under their desks trying to escape a never-ending barrage of criticism.

 

They'll be desperate to get out and back to normality so who will get the answers Rangers fans want from Green?

 

Let's see. Well, we have two governing bodies, the SPL and the SFA, but since the former can't agree on the time of day the job probably should fall to the latter.

 

After all, they are supposed to be the custodians of our game and because there are no Rangers directors the SFA, you might think, are obliged to quiz Green and demand he show them his plan in full detail.

 

But an SFA spokesman said they don't have a "fit and proper persons test".

 

Unbelievable.

 

The onus, he said, is on the clubs and pointed out: "The selling party who, in Rangers' case are the administrators, have to sign off saying in their opinion and after due diligence, the people taking over are sound."

 

Get real. The administrators just want to go home but the SFA have a duty to protect by asking questions such as who are these people Green doesn't want to name yet?

 

He says they have "fantastic connections" but to what and to whom?

 

How much working capital will be set aside - this is important as Whyte's calculations fell far short - and will there be regular board meetings with full disclosures?

 

And what will happen to the assets? Will they be moved, even temporarily to a newco, or incubator company, as Bill Miller would have done? Will they be placed in another company altogether, as one of the other would-be owners might have done?

 

The administrators will know but aren't telling.

 

The game's hierarchy must see they can't stand back and do SFA this time although no one is suggesting Green is the new Whyte. Not for a moment am I suggesting that but after what Rangers have gone through questions must be asked. Sorry, but this one is down to the SFA.

 

[caseyjones 0]

Didn't Regan admit to failings in the 'trust system' during his interview with Alex Thomson, and state that the process would need toughening up? It'preposterous that they are prepared to go down the same path once again.

[GovanAllan 0]

Part of it sounds a little like sour grapes from the fat one because he never saw this coming, Scottish journalist not doing his job properly shocker.

 

As for the bit about the SPL/SFA tell us something we don't all know Jim, we've been telling you lot for years about them but the press have done nothing but sit on their hands while getting the free trips to Scotland games and getting wined and dined to death.

[caseyjones 0]

Also, Traynor is quite correct about the Green claims about truth and openness being nothing but hot air.

 

Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit.

[BlueMazza 0]

I'm refusing to be excited/pissed off with this. I'm going to wait and see.

 

So far, I like the 15% share cap. That IS good, the rest we shall see.

[caseyjones 0]

I'm refusing to be excited/pissed off with this. I'm going to wait and see.

 

So far, I like the 15% share cap. That IS good, the rest we shall see.

 

The sensible option.

[ian1964 10,458]

I think all we can do is sit and wait to see what transpires,no need to get too excited or to go against him for now,nothing else we can do

[Juancornetto 1]

I honestly think the SFA should be taken to court under restriction of trade laws and made to answer why there were no rules checks and balances in place yet they see fit to make up the rules as they go along. I think this will simmer on for a long long time.

[caseyjones 0]

I honestly think the SFA should be taken to court under restriction of trade laws and made to answer why there were no rules checks and balances in place yet they see fit to make up the rules as they go along. I think this will simmer on for a long long time.

 

There is no restriction of trade in it's true sense. You don't actually need to be a full member of the SFA to play football.

[Calgacus 8]

Its interesting that Traynor says that the police were contacted last summer about Whyte and that concerns had been raised with a senior official at either the SFA or the SPL. The whole thrust of the panel's decision was that people at Rangers hadn't done enough to make public what was going on, yet here is evidence that they had. The panel's decision looks like an attempt to divert any blame away from the SFA and on to Rangers. The SFA never asked any questions even though there was a lot out in public, Bain's Court Case, the Daily Record's original Ticketus Story, the HMRC visits to Ibrox and the arrestment, the court actions by other creditors for payment of relatively small sums, the court action against Whyte's one of Whyte's other companies, the BBC Documentary, the warnings from the Independent Board Committee, the suspensions of Bain and McIntyre, and a lot of internet chatter, I'm sure I read somewhere (possibly in here) before Christmas that it was common knowledge that the Club hadn't paid its PAYE. Perhaps, people at Ibrox could have done more, but the SFA could have done more as well, and to lay all the blame at Rangers is unfair.